Topic: If you were in charge of Bitcoin 2.0 what would you change? (Read 1062 times)

Well, my answer will be according to the thread above not the reply respectively. If there would be a Bitcoin version, I think more authorized and reliable information towards the happenings with regards to Bitcoin for me ,it is important so that everyone is keeping in their own pathways, and not searching in the dark because of the current issues and process with relates to Bitcoin.

I'd definitely look into improving the environmental impact bitcoin has.  The total worldwide power consumption could run a small country I believe

Honestly, I do not know what you are talking about anymore. We were talking about development and you were talking about the "dev-state" and the Byzantine Generals problem and how that in 2009 - 2013 the developers reached consensus and "reached the truth" without trusting each other?

What are you talking about?

There are no "orders".  Devs are producing code and people are choosing to run it of their own volition.  If they chose to run something else, the law would be different.  Running code is not a "vote" on what the law should be, it's literally enforcing the laws users want to enforce.  Not "what should be", but "what is".  We don't have to all come to an agreement on what the law "should be" before anyone writes the code.  People just select the code they want and start enforcing rules.  Enforcement may include rejecting blocks that don't conform to that law, or disconnecting other clients that don't conform to the law.  Those securing the chain decide what the law is.  Not devs.  


 

Say it as many times as you like.  You are the one who doesn't understand consensus.  It's plain as day.  You've lied about it so many times that you've somehow managed to convince yourself it's the truth.  But it isn't.  It's not possible for us to "understand" the way you believe you do, because the things you're talking about only exist in your fevered imagination.  It's all in your head.  Your "understanding" is not based on anything real or tangible.  You only comprehend fairly tales and are totally oblivious to how things actually are.  9000+ nodes are clearly in agreement on what consensus is, which means you are demonstrably wrong.  Reality doesn't lie.  That's your specialty.

nope
the blocks are just a collection of data that conform to the law. blocks and their PoW hash do not solve who/what is giving out the orders of what the law should be

PoW is just hashing a hash

do i really need to say it again to you same group of chums that seem to not understand bitcoin...
research consensus..

put it this way many other coins are sha256 PoW.. do you think their blocks are acceptable to bitcoin because of PoW.
PoW is just about giving  block a strong identifier that can easily show if data has been edited.
its consensus that decide the rules of whats acceptable format everyone should follow

if you think pre 2009 unsolvable electronic peer to per cash systems solution was PoW then i guess your next rebuttal will probably be a total satoshi denial and you would probably say how its gregmaxwell, luke and pieters boss that actually invented bitcoin.. (the old "Adam Back solved it with 'hashcash'" mantra)

Wow! Nice thought! To personally, if would have a chance to make bitcoin 2.0.. .i will totally make it proof of stake! Currently we use so much power to keep Bitcoin alive!

Sorry but I believe this is the use of the term "Byzantine Generals" problem. Because from all the Bitcoin texts I read, whenever that term is used in Bitcoin, it talks about how Proof of Work has solved the "Byzantine Generals" problem because it enables the network to reach a "truth" that everyone agrees upon without trusting each other or a central authority.

That's not a flip flop.  If you are incapable of comprehending the difference between voting and running code, I'm afraid there is nothing I can do to help you.  Democracy is weak.  Just like your "arguments".  



You are making shit up again.  You are a disgusting liar.  I had a notification on the 18th to say that one of my posts had been removed by a moderator.  I have deleted nothing.  

flip:

flop:

flop:

flop:

flop:

yes doomad, i noticed you deleted your posts to hide your dictatorship supporting rants.. and your flip flops. but you missed many

real funny thing. in your posts all you ever done was tell me what i shouldnt be doing. that i shouldnt discuss a certain topic, that i should not say x or y. and how if i wrote code how ud be the first to rekt me. and if you knew of a way early on to discourage me from being involved in bitcoin. you would use it..

and all i done was ask you to independently research a few things, without you being spoonfed info from certain people

good evening and goodnight. may you enjoy your social drama. just remember. if you dont like things i discuss there is always an ignore button. and as a reminder you cant try playing the victim of a bite when you were the one poking the bear

Thank you for asking a very interesting question. I would want it to be more scalable, more readily available to users, environment-friendly and stable. But, I know this is all wishful thinking
The 2nd generation of cryptocurrency is slowly and steadily moving towards what I have mentioned here, and it will be only time when we can have what we want.

You're still the only one who thinks there has been a "consensus bypass", but okay, whatever.  I know I'd defend the rights of alternative clients to use softforks and activation dates because it's up to users if they want to run that code.  I would argue that users should have that choice.  Freedom, etc. 



If you ever figure out the "how", I'd love to hear it.  Your so-called bypass was the result of people running code and you can't stop them doing that.

they can write anything. but thats different from should they be allowed to control the whole network using consensus bypasses
imagine it if other teams done it. im sure youll be up in arms. infact i already seen it you have demonstrated that you would REKT anyone that opposed core. so your a hypocrit when you think its ok for core to dominate and control but then hate it when anyone else even discusses a possibility of non core control...

again try to learn consensus
learn byzantine generals

again its about anyone can write what they like. but it doesnt mean they should get what they like.

EG you can write your name and number on a napkin all you like. but that doesnt mean you get the right to mandate a female to become your wife

....
back to the discussion topic of what a coin 2.0 should change

writing features should be something any team should be able to write and have their own proposal gateway without having you go through cores moderated/censored method. but where the feature is only activated using satoshis solution to the byzantine generals problem which is what made bitcoin unique to all previous distributed database models. not mandated activation to bypass consensus.. as that is just a standard database that just has loyalist copies distributed all following one dictator

Quoted for posterity.  Let's hope you're finally starting to get it.  Any dev can code anything.  Otherwise the militant Core supporters (not me) will argue that alternative clients can't write the things they want to write.  Much like some people have tried to argue in the past, leading me to defend the rights of those alternative clients.  You act like I'm the enemy here, but believe it or not, my stance does a better job of preserving freedom for alternative clients than your stance. 

The REKT campaigns were the primary culprits of perpetuating the myth that other developers shouldn't be allowed to code what they wanted.  That means anyone who argues that Core can't use activation dates or softforks is only making it more acceptable for the next REKT campaign against an alternative client to say those devs can't do whatever they might be doing.  It's therefore the far more intelligent argument to make that anyone can code anything, even if you don't approve of it.  Think it through and you'll see that I'm right about this.

oh jeez, you poke, so ill bite..

the reason you hate me repeating myself is because you hate me raising an issue you wish lay hidden under a rug. and you hate me making people aware of the issue. which makes your job harder to hide it.
i have told you many many times that the MANDATED bull crap is the opposite of consensus. but then you act ignorant that i said it and act even more ignorant that i prefer consensus. all so you can pretend im the one advocating for splits and mandated.. but thats your flaw

restrictive environment??
seriously you need to do some research
devs can and should be able to write what they like. this includes taking onboard things the community want.. your mindset is the devs should ignore the community and the community should not have a say.(your no democracy no vote proposal)

my mindset is more teams where there is no REKT campaigns. your mindset is to have REKT campaigns and one team

my mindset is to use consensus to decide.. your mindset is that there should not be a vote and that a certain team should just demand something activates on a date and push opposition off the network contentiously at a lower threshold

now how about go take that coffee, sit back, relax de-stress and really review your own flip flops and just pick what one you really prefer
libertarian capitalist socialist(open to all) decentralised network of consensus to solve the byzantine generals problem
or
capitalist centralised network with just loyalist distribution that just follow by compatibility of the single general
so use this posts discussing to be productive and choose to flip or flop. and stick with one

then if you really want to discuss things about bitcoin. try to stick to content of the discussion and not the author of discussion. if your agenda the moment you wish to reply is to just attack the author of a discussion. try hitting the ignore button instead. and no point acting the bitten victim of a personal comment as reason to reply. as it was you that done the initial personal poke

Discussions tend to be more productive if you don't keep repeating the same thing over and over again when it's abundantly clear that what you are discussing is not possible to implement.  Or do I take it that you will finally stop saying roadmaps can't have softforks or activation dates when they clearly can?  You get told quite plainly in one topic that you can't prevent softforks and activation dates without sacrificing permissionless freedom, but all you do is move onto the next topic to repeat the same dumb thing.  

You could post your usual lies about me only supporting the one dev team, or you could accept the simple fact that the way things are now provides a healthier environment to alternative clients than the restricted environment you propose.  And don't pretend you aren't proposing it.  You've been saying it for months.  But if you're done saying it, then hallelujah.

mr meander AKA doomad pokes again
1.  i am not demanding anything. i am discussing. its a discussion board. dont like my opinion, there is a ignore button, its free
2. this topic is about discussing if we were to change things what would be changed. yes i get how you hate the idea that the community could discuss or even change the network to oppose "dev state" roadmap. but remember this is a discussion of opinions. so relax chill out, have a coffee
3. i am not advocating anything. i am saying bitcoin was designed 2009 to solve the issue of avoiding the need of a "dev state"(general(singular)) and instead where the bitcoin system works via community consensus of generals(plural). because thats the unique thing satoshi solved.
4. i know you want "dev state" to decide changes and have the community as just loyal soldiers just archiving data under the rules defined by dev state. you have been very clear on that. even to such an extent that before even writing public available code you have made it your mission to REKT anyone that opposes "dev state"

all you have done over the last few months is admit your a capitalist centralist where "dev state" are the kings and above the law and they deserve to be free. and everyone else should just be loyalists with no say. because you dont want community votes.. you just keep flip flopping to try hiding your desire. and you pretend you want freedom as long as it only applies to freely letting "dev state" to rule

You know full well that all of your unilateral changes have nothing to do with code and everything to do with telling people what they supposedly can or can't do.  Users ran code you don't like that utilised a softfork, so you say we shouldn't have softforks anymore.  A very small number of users ran code you don't like that had an activation date, so you say we can't use activation dates anymore.  You keep saying "show me the code", but nothing you're advocating can be achieved with code.  You're advocating a social contract.  Something vaguely akin to an honour system.  It's not viable.  You can't prevent people from coding something you don't like.  Accept it.  What you want is impossible.

//EDIT:  and if the community ever did find a way to stop people coding things they didn't like, it would be the client you are running that would be the first victim.  Be careful what you wish for and understand how much more you'd be complaining if we actually had the kind of Bitcoin you mistakenly believe you want.

bitcoin 2009-2013 was designed so that there was no "general"(singular)
cypherpunks for decades were having issues of making digital money in a way that did not require a general(singular) and instead where generals(plural) had an equal playing field where consensus would form majority agreement

meaning different brands of nodes that can all HAPPILY(without rekt, without 'dont like it F**k off').. offr proposals which would only activate when TRUE majority consensus was reached(without rekt, without 'dont like it f**k off') and satoshi invented bitcoin because it solved all that..

but now we are in a one general barking out the new orders to their loyal soldiers. and if soldiers were not loyal. they were shot onsite

which is the opposite of the whole reason of bitcoin unique invention, which was to finally have a currency which solved the byzantine generals issue to allow more than one brand to actually be on a level playing field.

yet you and your chums do not like the idea of having generals(plural) that use consensus. you lot prefer a general(singular) with mandated upgrades and consensus bypassing upgrades that are done without soldier allegiance needed

as exampled
where you think everyone should have to do it via "dev state" repo where its not expected people to even get to the point of having their proposal put into code to even allow anyone to download it, to even have a chance of a community consensus.

Everyone? Sure, the incompetent and non-coders can propose anything, and make a pull request, but they should not expect any of their suggestions to be merged in the main branch automatically.

If I had an opportunity to change Bitcoin i'll probably leave it as it is and let everyone suggest whatever they want. Everything has to be discussed thoroughly before putting any changes in to action because it may do more harm than good. If any changes were rushed we might experience some problems.

Imo it could've been done better since nothing is perfect and changes will come to make Bitcoin even better.

Edit:  These back and forth replies made the thread somewhat interesting to read.